9/11 2001, in the USA there were 14.8 road traffic fatalities per 100,000 people, that puts the total number of road traffic related fatalities Nation wide at approx. 44,000. (based on 300 million people living in the USA in 2000).

In the attack on the twin towers that year, (and in no way do I wish to trivialise the terrorist attack), there were 2973 victims. The then President launched a war on terrorism and named a number of rouge Nations because of this.

I'm not saying that he was wrong to do so, but surely there should have been an even bigger offensive against vehicular traffic? What are your thoughts about this and the hysteria surrounding terrorism, and the lack of interest in such a big killer?

US Population Graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg)

Zap

28-01-2010, 08:36 AM

Maybe because, in one case, they had specific "evildoers" to point fingers at.
(Even if they were the wrong evildoers.)

Strong

28-01-2010, 08:38 AM

Are you saying it was easier to blame others than blame themselves :sqwink:

Zap

28-01-2010, 08:41 AM

If you are forced to blame yourself, then the solution involves the restricting of your own rights, rather than the rights of others.

If we actually cared about traffic fatalities, then we might have to get more serious about licensing and traffic violations.

Halo

28-01-2010, 01:37 PM

If there was lots of money to be made attacking caar manufacturers I'm sure there'd be no stopping them.

If we're talking numbers what about War on Stress?
Denholm Reynholm declares war on stress in The IT Crowd (2.40):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46NLzqUpWnw

Atom

28-01-2010, 01:57 PM

If there was lots of money to be made attacking caar manufacturers I'm sure there'd be no stopping them.

If we're talking numbers what about War on Stress?
Denholm Reynholm declares war on stress in The IT Crowd (2.40):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46NLzqUpWnw
"This video contains content from Channel 4, who has decided to block it in your country."

Halo

28-01-2010, 03:02 PM

Hopefully one or more of these will work:
DV2rbExlxnw

zF4dCIjPc1c
I can't see that one as
This video contains content from Fremantle International, who has decided to block it in your country.

...and finally one with music added which isn't just as good.
Pw1XguvdNfw

Atom

28-01-2010, 03:18 PM

I can see all three of them and just finished watching them, looks like they stole one of those stress tests from Peter Griffin. lol

Brian

28-01-2010, 04:36 PM

There's a terrific interview in this months edition of Rolling Stone with the son of Bin Laden, Omar bin Laden. He said his father was overjoyed when Bush was elected.

"When Bush was elected, my father was so happy... this is the kind of president he needs - one who will spend money and break the country." (referring to the cost of war)

Another interesting quote on whether his father will stage more attacks of such grandeur: "He doesn't need to. As soon as America went into Afghanistan, his plan worked. He's already won."

It's an interesting interview and I recommend it to anyone who is interested. Omar was being groomed by Bin Laden to be his heir apparent but he (obviously) chose a very different path.

Anyways, in relation to your post another thing to bring up is this countries health care system. It's obviously in disarray but nothing significant has changed it in the past 40 years. Harvard Medical School (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917) says 45,000 unnecessary deaths per year occur because of our health care system. You'd think instead of Bush spending 2 trillion on dumb wars and another 2 trillion on unnecessary tax cuts he would have spent that money doing something good for us.

Cryren8972

29-01-2010, 07:14 AM

They're not interested in saving American lives. Or keeping us safe for that matter. They simply want to spend as much money as they can get their hands on. Period.

Strong

29-01-2010, 08:47 AM

...

Anyways, in relation to your post another thing to bring up is this countries health care system. It's obviously in disarray but nothing significant has changed it in the past 40 years. Harvard Medical School (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917) says 45,000 unnecessary deaths per year occur because of our health care system. You'd think instead of Bush spending 2 trillion on dumb wars and another 2 trillion on unnecessary tax cuts he would have spent that money doing something good for us.

I have to say that I give Obama some credit for even trying to reform the health care system in America. That 45,000 figure alone is an inditement that the current system is just not fit for purpose. (Sorry, I've been listening to Teflon Tony all morning). But it seems some major vested interests and the republicans, (probably some overlap there I'm sure), have scuppered the boat. Those that would have benefited and those that give a damn can't let it go unchallenged.

I would say it goes down to the roots of America being a fair and just society. That claim cannot be maintained for much longer if health care is not tackled. BTW IMHO.

Atom

29-01-2010, 10:34 AM

9/11 2001, in the USA there were 14.8 road traffic fatalities per 100,000 people, that puts the total number of road traffic related fatalities Nation wide at approx. 44,000. (based on 300 million people living in the USA in 2000).

In the attack on the twin towers that year, (and in no way do I wish to trivialise the terrorist attack), there were 2973 victims. The then President launched a war on terrorism and named a number of rouge Nations because of this.

I'm not saying that he was wrong to do so, but surely there should have been an even bigger offensive against vehicular traffic? What are your thoughts about this and the hysteria surrounding terrorism, and the lack of interest in such a big killer? (...)My thoughts on the link between terrorism and traffic deaths are effectively nonexistent. In fact when I read the OP I thought you were just having a bad day.

Halo

29-01-2010, 11:28 AM

You'd think instead of Bush spending 2 trillion on dumb wars and another 2 trillion on unnecessary tax cuts he would have spent that money doing something good for us.
Unfortunately doing something good would probably have been deemed inaffordable. It's funny how war is affordable whenever it's needed.

Maybe there was a "War on Common Sense" sometime in the past that we all seemed to miss. :sqconfused:

Cryren8972

29-01-2010, 11:47 AM

Unfortunately doing something good would probably have been deemed inaffordable. It's funny how war is affordable whenever it's needed.

Maybe there was a "War on Common Sense" sometime in the past that we all seemed to miss. :sqconfused:

I wonder if we could demand a Common Sense Entrance Exam for congress...

Strong

29-01-2010, 12:59 PM

My thoughts on the link between terrorism and traffic deaths are effectively nonexistent. In fact when I read the OP I thought you were just having a bad day.

Link? :sqconfused:

Well that would just be crazy!

Atom

29-01-2010, 01:05 PM

Link? :sqconfused:

Well that would just be crazy!Yes, link. Your link between vehicular traffic and terrorism is what I'm referring to.

(...)I'm not saying that he was wrong to do so, but surely there should have been an even bigger offensive against vehicular traffic? What are your thoughts about this and the hysteria surrounding terrorism, and the lack of interest in such a big killer? (...)

Strong

29-01-2010, 01:33 PM

Be more specific. I don't understand what link you are saying I made between vehicle fatalities and terrorism, apart from highlighting the number of road traffic related fatalities and the attack on the trade centre buildings in 2001.

Atom

29-01-2010, 01:38 PM

Be more specific. I don't understand what link you are saying I made between vehicle fatalities and terrorism, apart from highlighting the number of road traffic related fatalities and the attack on the trade centre buildings in 2001.Ok let me read it again and get back to you, damned life is interrupting me at the moment. lol

Atom

29-01-2010, 02:22 PM

Be more specific. I don't understand what link you are saying I made between vehicle fatalities and terrorism, apart from highlighting the number of road traffic related fatalities and the attack on the trade centre buildings in 2001.The act of you posting the two together is the link, and why is what I'm wondering.

Atom

29-01-2010, 02:26 PM

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what they have in common.

Atom

29-01-2010, 02:30 PM

I have hunting adventures to convey, where'd that other thread go..

lol

Doc

29-01-2010, 05:45 PM

A good point. One aspect, however, that I think is important, per our Constitution...
It is the Federal government's responsibility to protect the country and its population.
Regulation of traffic, and day to day domestic life, is to be handled by the individual states.

The split between national and local government is much the same in the UK Doc, so I entirely understand it. That said over the years, come the Christmas season you will always see national advertising campaigns warning of the dangers of drinking a driving, all with the purpose of reducing road traffic accidents. The changing of laws to force seat belt usage was also done on a national level. Where as locally the police target accident hot spots as does local government by changing traffic signs and road markings and CCTV monitoring, even introducing road humps and specific lanes for certain types of vehicles, for instance cycle lanes or bus and taxi lanes.

The point I'm trying to make is that it takes a concerted push by both national and local governing bodies and law enforcement to make a real difference and it is as much about changing people's perception of the problem and behaviour.

And this is perhaps why I made the comparison that I did with the war on terror; the perception of the problem. Very many more die each year because of vehicles, yet where has the focus of government been. I guess it is understandable, but still ...

Atom

30-01-2010, 09:40 AM

(...)The point I'm trying to make is that it takes a concerted push by both national and local governing bodies and law enforcement to make a real difference and it is as much about changing people's perception of the problem and behaviour.

And this is perhaps why I made the comparison that I did with the war on terror; the perception of the problem. Very many more die each year because of vehicles, yet where has the focus of government been. I guess it is understandable, but still ...Saints be praised, hallelujah. Thanks for the explanation, Strongy. Still kinda weird though I think.

Brian

30-01-2010, 10:38 AM

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but here in MA we have a "Click it or Ticket" campaign for seat belts (tv/radio ads) and every Friday/Saturday/Sunday there are random road stops in high target areas where they check every single driver.